Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years in Prison
I think this prison sentence is wrong--I hate what this guy says but I defend his right to say it. What do you think?
Update: Dr. Sanity weighs in on the free speech issue.
Update: Dr. Sanity weighs in on the free speech issue.
posted by Helen at 8:10 AM
32 Comments:
He plead guilty. Change of heart or lie? Abuse of Freedom of Speech.
I read the story also. As much as I hate what he said I agree with you. The fact that he plead guilty makes no difference. People do such things out of fear and/or to get a lighter sentence all the time. Denying freedom of speech is a dangerous road to travel.
Abuse of freedom of speech?? As that great statesman Larry Flynt pointed out, speech that is inoffensive doesn't require protection. Call me a crazy American, but I prefer our version of the Bill of Rights to whatever the Euros have.
An Englishman can be sentenced to 3 years in an Austrian prison for suggesting that Hitler didn't plan the Holocaust (a suggestion that Hitler and his cronies obviously hoped to inspire by putting virtually nothing about the Final Solution in writing), a French wine critic can be fined for being too harsh in a review and hurting the brand image...pah!
I'll take a dozen Ward Churchills over one European poobah telling me whether my speech is appropriate or not.
I actually agree with the sentence. This is Austrian law and I expect Austria to enforce its laws. Having said that, I wouldn't want to live there, and I think this is a good illustration of why free speech rights are so important. Maybe the Austrians and other countries with similar laws will rethink this issue.
I agree with those that say this is excessive censorship of speech. Like Helen, I don't agree with what he says but defend his right to say it.
And what's ironic is that the really dangerous people aren't very vocal and even when they are it isn't covered by the media. Eugenicists, elitists, some of the really nutso population control types, etc, etc, etc.....
Austria has the right, even the responsibility, to enforce its laws. But I am not in agreement with this law and would oppose anything similar in the United States. As abhorant as I find this guy, and the Fred Phelps, and others of this ilk in this world, I don't see how we can have a just law against being an a-hole. It's better, imo, to have these sort stating freely what they might otherwise be whispering so that we have the opportunity to publicly expose them and their lies for what they are.
Although I understand the sentiment, I don’t think it’s a good idea to jail people for drawing unpopular (and I might add, wrong) conclusions about serious issues. It sets a bad precedent. David Irving is a dolt—a champion of ignorance—but not a criminal.
drj, yes, it is just Austria enforcing Austrian laws, but then again, the Holocaust that he denied was just Germany enforcing German laws. The Gulags were just the USSR enforcing their laws. Beheadings of religious dissidents are just Iran enforcing Iranian laws. Need I go on?
I agree with you. I hate what he says but we shouldnt put him in jail.
i live in the UK and as someone who lost almost an entire branch of his family in the german pogroms, all but one ended up in auschwitz and dachau.
i have a tape of the last survivor, of that branch, telling me about what it was like in germany at that time (a copy of the tape is in the holocaust museum).
irving spoke about this 16 years ago, in 2 speeches. before the trial now, he was a crank and no body really knew of him, but now everyone knows about him and his stupid ideas.
austria and germany are somewhat paranoid about this subject, they are denying freedom of expression, just like someone else did.
In Austria, do they also put in jail muslims who say or carry signs that say
"behead those who disrespect Islam"?
Strange isn't it that death threats from muslims are ok, but a simple theory from a Holocaust denier is a crime?
Putting that guy in jail has just given more resolve to Iranian holocaust deniers than any speech by Ahmadinejad!
Ahmadinejad must be doing a happy dance as we speak!
All an Islamo-fascist has to do when he is depressed or in doubt is read news from the Euro MSM or the North American MSM...
I think Mark Steyn is right, the western civilisation is doomed...
anonymous 256,
Your comment really hit home with me--if you put a racist Holocaust denier in jail--not only is that okay but it looks "good." There is no real backlash or fear of violence for doing so. But if you mention putting Muslim leaders in jail for inciting violence--suddenly everyone in Europe and elsewhere turns a blind eye. Wonder what the difference is?
Dweeb and others:
As I think I made it clear in my earlier post, I am not in favor of this law but Austria passed it for a reason. I suspect it was an attempt to deal with lingering anti-Semitism in a country with a tragic history on that issue. Austria views this as hate speech and imposes limits on it, just as we impose limits on some forms of incendiary speech in America.
I hope Austrian lawmakers will rethink this law, especially since (as Dr. Helen raises in her comment) Austria and all of Europe face an even more difficult challenge in Muslim-inspired violence.
DRJ
The French cabinet yesterday gave its backing to a bill authorising penalties of up to a year in jail for anyone found guilty of making an anti-gay or sexist remark.
http://tinyurl.com/qgbrg
Hi JIC,
I regret that I don't have much knowledge about the legal aspects of free speech - just enough to say that there are legal reasons to regulate some speech in America.
The classic example is you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, cause a panic, and be excused on the basis that you were exercising your right to free speech. I think that other examples of speech that can be regulated include obscenity, some commercial speech, fighting words and speech intended to incite violence.
The First Amendment is a specialized area that is way beyond my knowledge and abilities. It has many exceptions that I'm not familiar with, however maybe another commenter or reader could help us out.
DRJ
There is concern here about this person's freedom of speech. What about Cindy Sheehan's freedom of speech at the SOTU or every citizen's freedom of speech as uncontrolled wiretapping continues in these free United States of America.
Anonymous 6:53:
If such a bill passes, if I were French men, I would start assailing the government with sexist comments made by French feminists until the courts shut down.
anonymous 6:59:
I think it was Sheehan's crummy t-shirt at the SOTU that got her kicked out--even some restaurants have a dress code--you know, where they tell you to wear a tie and jacket. They also kicked out a Republican Congressman's wife who was also wearing a t-shirt. If that is the biggest threat to freedom of speech that you can come up with in the US, it ain't much.
Burning your own cross on your own property is illegal expression in Virginia. The law was upheld in 2003 by the Supreme Court in Virginia v Black.
Capitol police dropped charges against Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young and apologized to both of them for kicking them out of the State of the Union address. They also could not explain why Sheehan was arrested and Young was not.
Although I think that this man is entirely incorrect in denying that the holocaust took place, imprisoning him is immoral and illogical. It's like saying believe in democracy or we'll put you in prison. It simply makes no sense. I can sympathise with jewish people who are offended by this man's comments, which were, after all, made nearly twenty years ago and subsequently recanted, but I think that the man is probably more barking mad than criminal.
DRJ, I'm sure Iran, the USSR, China, South Africa, nazi Germany, etc. all passed the laws they did for a reason. Countries always have reasons for tyranny, just not good ones. You posted saying you agreed with the sentence - do you agree with what was done to Soviet dissidents? Do you agree with what was done at Auschwitz? Because if you read your original comment, it's equally applicable to these examples. You've done nothing to logically differentiate this sentence from these other acts of tyranny.
I guess the salient question is what's your point? We can all agree that Austrian law was applied deterministically and consistently. SO WHAT? You've essentially stated that water is wet, and you agree that it's wet. Clearly, your comment was intended to differ with the tone of those before it, and for what reason? Did anyone say we should nuke Vienna? No. We merely condemned an act of tyranny and a human rights (freedom of speech/conscience) violation. Why are you so reluctant to just come out and say what they did was objectively, morally, ethically wrong? Call it as you see it. Express some conviction about it, because if you're afraid to do anything but be neutral, then you don't bring anything of value to the marketplace of ideas, thus demonstrating the ultimate suppression of free speech, Orwell's concept of DuckSpeak, where people are reduced to talking without the ability to express any strong ideas.
anonymous 6:53 (will people PLEASE choose pseudonyms?): Voltaire is doing about 6000 rpm right about now.
anonymous 6:59: what is this uncontrolled wiretapping you speak of? I think you should inform yourself better.
Greg, your own link to Virginia v Black does not support your assertion. The law cited requires intent to intimidate (which is the reason the SCOTUS overturned the conviction) and specifically states "to burn … a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place,”
Congratulations for all you do, Dr. Helen, and also to Glenn for what he does. May God bless all of your family.
On topic: same as you, I don't agree with what he says, but I reject that he's been thrown in jail for just "saying" something (in opposition for "doing" something which is an entirely different matter). I think that is dangerous: people persecuted for what they say, whatever it is. Just one step before having a fascist state. That's why I oppose any hate-crimes laws, because many times they include speech among the prosecuted behavior, and that is just plain wrong. Freedom of speech has to be paramount if we want a free society.
Free speech works differently for different kinds of speech. Most people don't like the idea that there are different kinds of speech until they get burned by one, e.g. spam is a form of commercial speech.
History shows that unless someone is using speech to immediately incite unlawful action, it's best to keep it out in the open rather than bottle it up.
Irving's speech is subversive and seditious. His audience has designs that have no regard for the liberty of others. So he doesn't have any right to say it but at the same time we can't simply bottle it up.
I'm in favor of free speech not because I respect the non-right of others to advocate taking my freedoms but because blanket free speech tends to work against those who would take away my liberties.
Scooby, you're contradicting yourself. What's wrong with taking away your liberties when you so readily deny the same rights to others?
it depends what YOU term as subversive, there are many works of literature thats been called subversive. are they ok to be banned, there is always something thats termed subversive.
http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/
creationism, evolution.. are they to be banned by the opposing sides.
there has to be a right to free speech for everyone even if you dont beleive in it, but inciting and incitement to hatred thats a grey area. you can say stuff that people take wrongly and they think your inciting, its all about perception of the speech.
"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
-Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
I'm going to hang that on my wall.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)
an interesting article about this subject
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/wajsman022206.htm
Freedom consists largely in the right to talk nonsense."
~Edgar Watson Howe, American novelist
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
~ George Orwell
"Freedom is the right to be wrong; not the right to do wrong."
~ Prime Minister John Diefenbaker
he's a skank. that's the polite version.
i'm uneasy with...well, i think it's wrong to jail him for being a lying 'racist' coward, etc., etc.
we shouldn't lock up crazies on the street, either, not the ones that burn our flag, or others', not the ones that, um, 'soil' themselves...but mr. irving and these others conjure similar responses.
apostates that have reverted to corpsophagy, however, have their own special niche in hell.
bone appetit.
The tragedy of Germany, France and Austria is that they are still in a kind of Dark Age mentality where the Holocaust has become a religion and those who deny it are the victims of state sponsored witch hunts.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home